Graham Goode wrote: > Hi Christian, > > I'm a newish user of LinuxSampler who can now compile everything from > CVS in both Ubuntu and Puppy Linux, so I've come a long way from > absolute beginner. Just a few questions to help me understand what > you're saying about the command line max. voices and streams. > 1. If you went with the simpler 'global' option would that then mean: > a) that regardless of how many sampler engines are running the limit > of the whole lot would be what is set by the global option, or > b) each sampler engine would run with the set global limit as its own limit? > 2. With the 'more overhead work' / per engine option would the > eventual front-end then allow one to set the voices and streams per > audio device? > > If the answer is 1b then I think it is a great step forward. The > second option would be really nice to have, but if it is a lot of work > then I agree that it might not be worth it ATM. > > My 2c :-) > > GrahamG > South Africa > > On 10/29/08, Christian Schoenebeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi everybody ... breaking the silence... :) >> >> Benno was stressing me for a while to make the option for max. voices and >> disk >> streams a runtime option, rather than a compile time one, as its currently >> the case. I guess I'm going to implement that soon. >> >> The reason why I postponed this for a while was, because I was unsure >> whether >> I should implement a simple solution, like setting the max. voices / streams >> globally for the whole sampler..... or making it an option on a per engine >> instance basis. >> >> The simple solution (globally) would make it an "untrue" value, at least if >> more than one audio output device is used in the sampler. Because, as you >> might know, for each audio output device, a separate sampler engine is >> created and each engine has its own counter for limiting the amount of >> voices >> and streams. >> >> On the other hand, making it a per engine option would probably mean a lot >> of >> overhead work, both on backend as well as on frontend side. Since e.g. on >> frontend side one would have to implement something like an engine instance >> parameter browser. Not sure if its worth it ATM. >> >> What do you guys think? >> >> CU >> Christian >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge >> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great >> prizes >> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world >> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Linuxsampler-devel mailing list >> Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Linuxsampler-devel mailing list > Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel > I agree that the second option sounds nice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Linuxsampler-devel mailing list Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
